Author
Topic: The Authority of the Greek Old Testament (Read 1434 times)

Has anyone read the following book "The Authority of the Greek Old Testament" ?. Is it a good supporting book on refuting certain claims against the Septuagint?.

In this excellent work, Dr. Catherine Brown Tkacz argues against the widely held idea that the the Masoretic text of the Old Testament is “the original” text; holds that the Septuagint, which comes from equally venerable roots, is often more accurate than the Masoretic text; and demonstrates that even many contemporary Jewish scholars acknowledge the usefulness of the Septuagint.

I am just curious to know when did people or which person starting saying that the Tanakh was translated centuries after the Pentateuch ?. What evidence have they got that the Tanakh was translated after the 1st Century A.D ? They make claims that the Tanakh was translated by non-jews and possibly by the Church?.

The Torah was translated around 300BC Christ appeared on the scene in 7BC-1BC so let just say 300 years later - in the that time frame The Jews living in the diaspora and language at that time was Greek - They would of not went without the using there Holy Scriptures just the Torah (the five books of Moses) they would of definitely had the Tanakh available.

Pity that there's no good version of the Septuagint out there. I have the Rahlfs version but it isn't perfect, sometimes differing from liturgical texts. I'm too poor for the Göttingen Septuagint (who isn't with the digital version costing $700 and the hard copies far more than that) but I'm sceptical of the eclectic method anyway. Is the Apostoliki Diakonia version for sale?

On topic: the LXX and the MT should be used together, there shouldn't be a LXX-only movement or something.

On topic: the LXX and the MT should be used together, there shouldn't be a LXX-only movement or something.

Why? The OT of the Church is the LXX, so personally I see no reason to use the MT. I can see some reasons for comparing the two from time to time, but the LXX is the Christian OT, not the MT.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

On topic: the LXX and the MT should be used together, there shouldn't be a LXX-only movement or something.

Why? The OT of the Church is the LXX, so personally I see no reason to use the MT. I can see some reasons for comparing the two from time to time, but the LXX is the Christian OT, not the MT.

James

Sometimes the MT is clearer in its prophecies about Christ, sometimes the LXX is. I have read somewhere in the works of St. Augustine (or was it St. Jerome?) that the LXX and the MT sometimes have differences that are significant in itself. In Jonah the LXX said that Nineveh would be destroyed in 3 days and the MT said that it would be destroyed in 40 days (or was it the other way around?). Anyway, his point was that both readings have important spiritual meanings and that both are inspired and that thus both should be used. I couldn't agree more.

Has anyone read the following book "The Authority of the Greek Old Testament" ?. Is it a good supporting book on refuting certain claims against the Septuagint?.

In this excellent work, Dr. Catherine Brown Tkacz argues against the widely held idea that the the Masoretic text of the Old Testament is “the original” text; holds that the Septuagint, which comes from equally venerable roots, is often more accurate than the Masoretic text; and demonstrates that even many contemporary Jewish scholars acknowledge the usefulness of the Septuagint.

I haven't read it, but the quote is correct.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It's essentially just a short essay, so I wouldn't say it offers an overly convincing or definitive defense of the LXX translation, but it provides a decent overview of the key issues involved and is a good starting point.

Cyrillic: the Apostoliki Diakonia version can be purchased from their website. I don't know that it's worth getting if you already have Rahlfs though. It also differs from certain liturgical texts here and there.

On topic: the LXX and the MT should be used together, there shouldn't be a LXX-only movement or something.

Why? The OT of the Church is the LXX, so personally I see no reason to use the MT. I can see some reasons for comparing the two from time to time, but the LXX is the Christian OT, not the MT.

James

Sometimes the MT is clearer in its prophecies about Christ, sometimes the LXX is. I have read somewhere in the works of St. Augustine (or was it St. Jerome?) that the LXX and the MT sometimes have differences that are significant in itself. In Jonah the LXX said that Nineveh would be destroyed in 3 days and the MT said that it would be destroyed in 40 days (or was it the other way around?). Anyway, his point was that both readings have important spiritual meanings and that both are inspired and that thus both should be used. I couldn't agree more.

Both St. Augustine and St. Jerome pre-date the MT, so it seems to me that you must be referring to the Hebrew scriptures as used by St. Jerome when translating the Vulgate. I'd have less of an issue with that idea, though I still don't think it was really necessary (in fact I think I'd argue it was a wrong move) to go to the Hebrew, but the Masoretic Text is not identical with what St. Jerome knew. It is a post-, non- and anti-Christian recension of the Hebrew scriptures and it is certainly not the OT of the Church. If you do want to look at a non-LXX OT, I'd argue you'd be better of with the Vulgate than the MT.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Cyrillic: the Apostoliki Diakonia version can be purchased from their website. I don't know that it's worth getting if you already have Rahlfs though. It also differs from certain liturgical texts here and there.

I take it is this one? I have the Rahlfs one with morphological data on my pc as a pdf.

Pity that there's no good version of the Septuagint out there. I have the Rahlfs version but it isn't perfect, sometimes differing from liturgical texts. I'm too poor for the Göttingen Septuagint (who isn't with the digital version costing $700 and the hard copies far more than that) but I'm sceptical of the eclectic method anyway. Is the Apostoliki Diakonia version for sale?

On topic: the LXX and the MT should be used together, there shouldn't be a LXX-only movement or something.

I agree 100% with this. The scholarly pendulum swings back and forth between the MT and LXX. The more texts we have to look at and compare, the better. Use both.

On topic: the LXX and the MT should be used together, there shouldn't be a LXX-only movement or something.

Why? The OT of the Church is the LXX, so personally I see no reason to use the MT. I can see some reasons for comparing the two from time to time, but the LXX is the Christian OT, not the MT.

James

I agree, while there are some wonderful insights in the Masoretic texts, in truth, there are also blatant revisions to argue or apologize for post-Christian interpretations of Old Testament verses. I have read the modern JPS translations of the Tanahk and they are blatantly ideological at times and in almost polar opposite of several fundamental Christian uses of the Old Testament. For my part, I prefer the Septuagint, and often I am skeptical of the KJV because it uses the Masoretic texts to proof-read against the Septuagint versions, largely because the English decided that they liked Jewish folks more than Roman Catholic folks, which is bitterly ironic and any Jewish person considering the history of Western Europe and even England might just have a cynical laugh.

We should consult the Masoretic texts from time to time for comparison of Scriptural evolution, but we should only examine such translations as literature, not Sacred Scriptures. Only those versions which have been adopted by the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church are legitimate today, and these include the Septuagint and the Vulgate.

Its interesting to note that the Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint, Why?.

Because that's what the diaspora Jews of the first few centuries had. Ethiopia is relatively isolated, so it makes sense.

There are some scholars, even Ethiopians, who assert that the Ethiopian Jews weren't initially Jewish at all, but rather are an extreme reaction to some of the Fundamentalists who were sparked into rivalry during the Sabbatarian divisions oriented around Abba Stephen. Several sects pushed for Old Testament revivals such as practicing elements of the Law, and also Saturday Sabbath. Some folks have argued that some of these sects went so far as to revert to Judaism, sort of like the modern pseudo-Christian sects like the Hebrew Israelites and other Old Testament oriented Christian heresies. I'm not sure, there is indeed some merit to this argument, however I would say that perhaps what is the truth is that there was a small group of indigenous Jewish groups who were revived by new-comers from the Sabbatarian movements. Either way, the Ethiopian Jews by virtue of geographic and political isolation were entirely separated from the Jewish groups of the Orient and essentially received all of their Jewish stuff from the Church, including the Bible and many aspects of their worship services which are strikingly similar to those of the Tewahedo Tradition (hence why some scholars have asserted that they were actually Christian revisionists and not initially Jews at all). I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.. Realistically after centuries of economic and socio-cultural persecution, by the modern era the Ethiopian Jews were hardly even Jewish anymore by most standards of Judaism, they were actually a lot like some of these pseudo-Christian-Jewish contemporary interpretations.

I believe there were indeed indigenous Jews in Ethiopia before the Solomonic Restoration, however I think they declined almost to the point of non-existence and were only revived by an influx of Christians and other "converts" during the Sabbatarian controversies of the mid-15th century.

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 05:00:04 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Cyrillic: the Apostoliki Diakonia version can be purchased from their website. I don't know that it's worth getting if you already have Rahlfs though. It also differs from certain liturgical texts here and there.

I take it is this one? I have the Rahlfs one with morphological data on my pc as a pdf.

No good translation or no good singular text? Am I right in thinking there is one standard Hebrew MT? I know it took centuries to compile it, but is there one standard version compared to several versions of the Septuagint (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, etc.)? The Church of Constantinople, at least, has an official Greek OT text. The other "Greek" patriarchates also have their own official texts. I saw a Gospel book which compared them side by side.

That would be an interesting book, a book on Orthodox Biblical texts. Much of it, I gather, is obscure, lost to time.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.